Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dream Focus (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
:::::::So, you're admitting to using ARS as a forum to canvas for keep !votes in the AFD, and not to improve the article? Neither one of you has touched the article itself, and all Lambian has done is made it worse by inserting more apparent OR into the lead. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC) |
:::::::So, you're admitting to using ARS as a forum to canvas for keep !votes in the AFD, and not to improve the article? Neither one of you has touched the article itself, and all Lambian has done is made it worse by inserting more apparent OR into the lead. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I just improved the article in question, before reading your recent nonsense post here. No one is "admitting" anything, not sure how what I said got twisted around in your mind to make you think that. Most articles listed now didn't have anyone go to them, since no one thought they worth the bother of saving. Sometimes people feel like doing some work in an article, and sometimes they don't. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 03:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC) |
::::::::I just improved the article in question, before reading your recent nonsense post here. No one is "admitting" anything, not sure how what I said got twisted around in your mind to make you think that. Most articles listed now didn't have anyone go to them, since no one thought they worth the bother of saving. Sometimes people feel like doing some work in an article, and sometimes they don't. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 03:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::This forum is currently being discussed elsewhere as a stealth CANVAS outlet and some people are gunning for its closure and maybe building evidence for a case? I don't know. It's currently under the spotlight so to speak and it might be best to consider some of the suggestions being made not in a personal way. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User_talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #009933;">'''C'''</span>]] 03:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Relation (history of concept)]] == |
== [[Relation (history of concept)]] == |
||
Revision as of 03:37, 11 February 2018
ARS Code of Conduct
- Note that this wikiproject is only intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting votes or vote-stacking. Be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here.
- Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion.
- Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Wikipedia's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.
- For more information about article rescue, please refer to ARS Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Rescue guide
- For additional article improvement listings, check out this project's archives and listings at WikiProject Cleanup
This is a list and discussion of Wikipedia content for rescue consideration. When posting here, please be sure to:
- First familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for topic notability and identifying reliable sources, as well as the prohibition on inappropriate canvassing
- Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content. Please ensure that your comment here is neutrally worded. (You can also !vote to delete an article at its deletion discussion because you think it is untenable in its present state, and still list it here in the hope that another editor will find a way to improve it and save it.)
- You should disclose in a deletion discussion that a post has been made at the rescue list.
- Sign posts with four tildes ~~~~.
- Place the {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} template in Articles for deletion discussions, to notify editors about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
The following templates can be used for articles listed here:
- *{{Find sources|Article name}} - Adds source search options
- *{{lagafd|Article name}} - Adds relevant links
- *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (2nd nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated twice
- *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (3rd nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated 3 times
- *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (Nth nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated N ≥ 4 times
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Dragonite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
Are your edits are often dramatic, bold or grandiose? Do you spend hour after hour on Google Books doing research for an article? Can you focus on a single article intensely? Maybe you're a WikiDragon too... Andrew D. (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: What are your suggestions for improving the article? The above joke-y meta comment would be amusing and charming, if you also indicated, in accordance with the guidelines on this page,
a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content
. You haven't edited the article talk page or the AFD yourself, so it's very difficult to determine what changes you think could be made to rescue the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)- The most obvious issue in this case is that there are blatant alternatives to deletion as just about every Pokemon is a blue link and so it is not our policy to delete them. I get the impression that this particular specimen is especially popular in Pokémon Go. That's had extensive coverage since its release in 2016 and so maybe that's a promising line of enquiry. Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the obvious solution is revert to a redirect, per BRD, and then allow discussion among interested editors whether an exception should be made for Pokemon #149 but not #147 (which redirects to a list) or #148 (which redirects to an unrelated article). This is how I !voted, this is the implied intention of User:Zxcvbnm, and this is almost certainly how the AFD will be closed; literally no one is saying "This page should be removed from public view". I'm confused what purpose posting this to ARS under these circumstances could serve, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- The most obvious issue in this case is that there are blatant alternatives to deletion as just about every Pokemon is a blue link and so it is not our policy to delete them. I get the impression that this particular specimen is especially popular in Pokémon Go. That's had extensive coverage since its release in 2016 and so maybe that's a promising line of enquiry. Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Swamp monster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
If you want to get down and dirty... :) Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: The above is a violation of the guidelines on this page. It includes neither
a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia,
norany ideas to improve the content
, and is nothing but a notification that an article is at AFD, with the clear implication of "This article is at AFD; you know what to do..." If no rationale or ideas for how to fix the article's problems are added within the next 24 hours, I will remove it as canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)- The suggestions above don't have formal guideline status and, even if they did, common sense is expected. In this case, my gut feeling was that the topic had potential as a broad concept page. Lambian has suggested the excellent source Swampmen: Muck-Monsters and their Makers and so matters are proceeding well. Andrew D. (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, they don't, but WP:CANVAS does. If you come here and do nothing but link to the AFD, presumably because you think ARS members will be more likely to !vote one way than any other (even though my "userfy/draftify" middle way suggestion is getting some traction). Anyway, even if Lambian did find a source, who's going to do the heavy lifting of fixing the article? At a guess, I'd suspect that maybe one quarter of the contents of our article are even touched upon in that book (which probably says something different even for some of those). This shouldn't be allowed end up like the Korean influence on Japanese culture AFD, where the "TNT delete" !voters had to clean up the article while "keep" !votes either walked away apparently happy to have "won" the AFD or actively hindered improvement. What's your take on Moving the page to User:Andrew Davidson/Swamp monster? Or maybe even Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Swamp monster? (That one actually seems like a really good idea -- has it been tried before?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it has been tried before – see WP:INCUBATOR. It didn't work and now we have draft space which doesn't work well either. It's our policy to develop content in mainspace and that's the best place for it because readers and editors can collaborate together in a natural way. Local drafts aren't nearly so good because they have limited exposure and engagement. They are like a morass or swamp; topics get bogged down there. Andrew D. (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I know abour Article Incubator. What I meant to ask was whether this project had ever "adopted" problem articles like the swamp monster one into its own project space to fix them. The problem as I see it is that quite often ARS will come along and !vote down a proposed deletion of an article that clearly has next to nothing worth preserving, and then not actually do any work to fix the articles in question. With swamp monster, I and two other editors (so far) have looked at it and said "Wow, this article is a mess. Almost everything in it is textbook OR. I don't think anything would be lost by blowing it up and starting over." Presumably you and the other keep !votes disagree and see at least a sizeable portion of the article as salvageable, but if that's the case then the burden is on you to prove it by fixing the article. The above-mentioned "projectification" (?) would allow ARS members to do so without the time limit of AFD. Obviously it would need to still have some form of time limit, or perhaps there could be a limit on the number of drafts ARS can host at any one time, or something. Anyway, that's kinda beside the point. Your continued good-natured punning is much appreciated (and I'm being sincere; I had a good larf at your last sentence), but I still think that "winning" AFD "battles" and then running away without making any effort to fix the articles, which is what appears to be going on here (and certainly went on in the "mottainai" and "Korean influence" cases), is the opposite of the stated purpose of this project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- No members of any Wikiprojects are required to do what you are suggesting, so why should this one be any different? Dream Focus 02:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- So, you're admitting to using ARS as a forum to canvas for keep !votes in the AFD, and not to improve the article? Neither one of you has touched the article itself, and all Lambian has done is made it worse by inserting more apparent OR into the lead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I just improved the article in question, before reading your recent nonsense post here. No one is "admitting" anything, not sure how what I said got twisted around in your mind to make you think that. Most articles listed now didn't have anyone go to them, since no one thought they worth the bother of saving. Sometimes people feel like doing some work in an article, and sometimes they don't. Dream Focus 03:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- This forum is currently being discussed elsewhere as a stealth CANVAS outlet and some people are gunning for its closure and maybe building evidence for a case? I don't know. It's currently under the spotlight so to speak and it might be best to consider some of the suggestions being made not in a personal way. -- GreenC 03:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I just improved the article in question, before reading your recent nonsense post here. No one is "admitting" anything, not sure how what I said got twisted around in your mind to make you think that. Most articles listed now didn't have anyone go to them, since no one thought they worth the bother of saving. Sometimes people feel like doing some work in an article, and sometimes they don't. Dream Focus 03:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- So, you're admitting to using ARS as a forum to canvas for keep !votes in the AFD, and not to improve the article? Neither one of you has touched the article itself, and all Lambian has done is made it worse by inserting more apparent OR into the lead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- No members of any Wikiprojects are required to do what you are suggesting, so why should this one be any different? Dream Focus 02:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I know abour Article Incubator. What I meant to ask was whether this project had ever "adopted" problem articles like the swamp monster one into its own project space to fix them. The problem as I see it is that quite often ARS will come along and !vote down a proposed deletion of an article that clearly has next to nothing worth preserving, and then not actually do any work to fix the articles in question. With swamp monster, I and two other editors (so far) have looked at it and said "Wow, this article is a mess. Almost everything in it is textbook OR. I don't think anything would be lost by blowing it up and starting over." Presumably you and the other keep !votes disagree and see at least a sizeable portion of the article as salvageable, but if that's the case then the burden is on you to prove it by fixing the article. The above-mentioned "projectification" (?) would allow ARS members to do so without the time limit of AFD. Obviously it would need to still have some form of time limit, or perhaps there could be a limit on the number of drafts ARS can host at any one time, or something. Anyway, that's kinda beside the point. Your continued good-natured punning is much appreciated (and I'm being sincere; I had a good larf at your last sentence), but I still think that "winning" AFD "battles" and then running away without making any effort to fix the articles, which is what appears to be going on here (and certainly went on in the "mottainai" and "Korean influence" cases), is the opposite of the stated purpose of this project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it has been tried before – see WP:INCUBATOR. It didn't work and now we have draft space which doesn't work well either. It's our policy to develop content in mainspace and that's the best place for it because readers and editors can collaborate together in a natural way. Local drafts aren't nearly so good because they have limited exposure and engagement. They are like a morass or swamp; topics get bogged down there. Andrew D. (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, they don't, but WP:CANVAS does. If you come here and do nothing but link to the AFD, presumably because you think ARS members will be more likely to !vote one way than any other (even though my "userfy/draftify" middle way suggestion is getting some traction). Anyway, even if Lambian did find a source, who's going to do the heavy lifting of fixing the article? At a guess, I'd suspect that maybe one quarter of the contents of our article are even touched upon in that book (which probably says something different even for some of those). This shouldn't be allowed end up like the Korean influence on Japanese culture AFD, where the "TNT delete" !voters had to clean up the article while "keep" !votes either walked away apparently happy to have "won" the AFD or actively hindered improvement. What's your take on Moving the page to User:Andrew Davidson/Swamp monster? Or maybe even Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Swamp monster? (That one actually seems like a really good idea -- has it been tried before?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- The suggestions above don't have formal guideline status and, even if they did, common sense is expected. In this case, my gut feeling was that the topic had potential as a broad concept page. Lambian has suggested the excellent source Swampmen: Muck-Monsters and their Makers and so matters are proceeding well. Andrew D. (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Relation (history of concept) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
This is mainly a case of cleanup but I'm not keen on philosophical topics myself. See also the similar AfD for Virtues (number and structure). Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- List of Wikipedia people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
I suppose that everyone is quite familiar with this topic. There's lots more scope for expansion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Arlett Tovar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
This article needs expansion and incorporation of references found via a basic Google News search. WP:FOOTY includes one top-division women's league despite there being dozens around the world. This particular league and its players have received a remarkable amount of news coverage in its first season. Hmlarson (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete.
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Viridiana Salazar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
This article needs expansion an incorporation of references found via a basic Google News search and in the AFD. WP:FOOTY includes one top-division women's league despite there being dozens around the world. This particular league and its players have received a remarkable amount of news coverage in its first season. Additional eyes appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep.
Article was recklessly nominated for AfD though luckily a helpful British user who happened to pass by has managed to supply the following sources that support the retention of the article, in relation to early pan-American trails:
As the British man noted on the talk page of AfD, it's possible they may relate to parts of the Oregon Trail, Great Osage Trail or Santa Fe Trails or to the Lewis and Clark Expedition route.
Please help to fix the article using the above sources. Danke. 14.192.208.83 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Result Page moved to Draft:Medicine Trails Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the secondary sources already in the article, there are other articles about this player in Mexico's top-division football/soccer league available via a Google News search to support WP:GNG. WP:FOOTY does not include the majority of top-division women's leagues around the world -- only 1 on my last check. Hmlarson (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Userfied to User:Hmlarson/Deneva Cagigas